Maj Gen (retd) Abdur Rashid

Maj Gen (retd) Abdur Rashid, Security Analyst : It was not important whether the main copy of “Instrument of surrender to be signed at Dacca on 16 December 1971” was torn apart. Rather enlargement or revision of it was more important. Maj (retd) Qamrul Hasan wrote what changes were made, but he did not mention what the changes are. He also wrote that the main instrument was published in the book styled “Surrender at Dacca: Birth of a Nation” authored by Lt Gen JFR Jacob. What are the differences between the information mentioned in the book and the deal inked afterwards? I am going to picturise the matter. Maj Qamrul did not mention the difference in his book. Despite research and scrutiny, I too didn’t get any mention of that in any book, research paper or reference sources.
I read out very well the book called Surrender at Dacca: Birth of a Nation. The main thing about the book is that the issue of “Instrument of surrender to be signed at dacca on 16 December 1971” was stated in it. Actually, he did not do that—he mentioned in the book. We cannot accept everything that way since it is mentioned in the book that he thought that a draft was sent to Delhi– instrument of surrender. Lt Gen Jagjit Singh Arora, chief of the Mitra Bahini, would take here the document of surrender after having it approved by the Indian army chief of staff.
He thought whether there would be the surrender if the issue is not included in the draft. Hence, he redrafted the main copy. He put his signature on what he carried there. Jacob claimed many things like that, regarding which there is debate in India. He also said he did not find any document supporting the claim that a pact was sealed keeping Bangladesh out of it on December. He made the mention of retype and sign from Jacob’s book. He implied by retype that he did not mention which part he excluded from the December 20 instrument.
Based on interview by Ashiq Rahman, translated by Sayeed Muhammad